Unsorted FBI Documents

r

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 5456 Case file # 95-224797.

Material Examiner Malone (R<

. Remarks :

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 2:00 PM (Time),

09/16 199

(Date)

File #: 95-224797

Laboratory #(s): 80802054

90216006

80828064

00620014

1

90129011

RQ

QW

MK

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed

Reviewed

□

□

□

Not Reviewed
□

□

□

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Materials Reviewed

Michael Malone

Testimony Date(s): Unknown

Laboratory Report(s):

Pages: 47-119

Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:

80802054, 80828064
90129011, 90216006
00620014

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician(s)

Laboratory Number: 80802054, 80828064

90129011,90216006

00620014

Page

Date: Oct 16, 1978

Date: May 30, 1979

Date: Aug 13, 1980

Was any other material reviewed? X Yes

□ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letters dated Aug 1, 1978 and

June 16, 1980

Results of Review

File ft: 95-224797

Item or Specimen ft Reviewed: Q1-Q19, K2, Q20-Q27, K3-K8,

Q28-Q32

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time ofthe original eiamination(s)?

□ Yes □ No s'Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? o Yes raNo □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

□ Transcript not available,

♦

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

A

Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

□ Yes

^No □ Unable to

Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.

Use "Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-224797

#1. There is insufficient documentation to determine if the hair comparison was performed in a scientifically
acceptable manner.

#2. The results are not adequately documented in the notes. The notes are not dated, arc in pencil and are not
initialled by the technician(s): Some hair were deemed unsuitable for comparison with no reason or explanation
given. The notes do not indicate the packaging of the items or the presence/absence of a seal on them.

#4. The examiner testifies: "1 examined", "I did" remove a hair from Ql, "I observed". The notes indicate the
technician examined, observed and removed the hair on Ql. This is misleading.

The examiner was asked if the container of Ql was sealed when he received it. At first, he said it was, but the
seal is not documented in the case notes. When asked how he knew it was sealed, he said "I have a standing
rule...if...not sealed I will not examine it". This is not proper documentation.

Review completed at: 4:00 PM (Time), 09 / 16 / 99 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4
hour):

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

9 -/ 6 -17

(Date)

Page of 3

Initials:

/ (Signature)